Dataset Information

Outcomes of Instrumented and Noninstrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of posterolateral lumbar fusion for lumbar stenosis cases requiring bilateral facetectomy in conjunction with a laminectomy. The authors evaluated 34 consecutive patients who had undergone a lumbar laminectomy, bilateral partial facetectomy, and posterolateral fusion at a single institution between 1981 and 1996. They included 25 men and 9 women with a mean age of 42 years (range, 27-57 years). Twenty-three cases were instrumented and 11 were noninstrumented. Mean follow-up was 21 years (range, 15-29 years). Outcomes evaluated included reoperation rate, clinical outcomes evaluated by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, radiographic evaluations of adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD) and lumbar lordosis, and contributing demographic factors to disease progression. At final follow-up, 17 of the 34 patients had undergone reoperation (43% of the instrumented group and 64% of the noninstrumented group). There were no differences in the reoperation rate or ODI improvement between the instrumented and noninstrumented groups (P>.05). Female patients required more revisions, had less ODI improvement, had greater postoperative ASD, and had less maintenance of their postoperative lumbar lordosis. There was no difference in maintenance of postoperative lumbar lordosis or ASD between the instrumented and noninstrumented groups. Instrumentation did not improve revision rates, clinical outcomes, or radiographic outcomes in laminectomies requiring contemporaneous facetectomies.

SUBMITTER: Pourtaheri S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5561727 | biostudies-other | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Two-year clinical and radiographic follow-up of a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, intra-patient controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing a bone graft substitute (AttraX Putty) with autograft in instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) surgery. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare PLF rates between 1 and 2 years of follow-up and between graft types, and to explore the role of bone grafting based on the location of the PLF mass. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:There are indications that bony fusion proceeds over time, but it is unknown to what extent this can be related to bone grafting. METHODS:A total of 100 adult patients underwent a primary, single- or multilevel, thoracolumbar PLF. After instrumentation and preparation for grafting, the randomized allocation side of AttraX Putty was disclosed. The contralateral posterolateral gutters were grafted with autograft. At 1-year follow-up, and in case of no fusion at 2 years, the fusion status of both sides of each segment was blindly assessed on CT scans. Intertransverse and facet fusion were scored separately. Difference in fusion rates after 1 and 2 years and between grafts were analyzed with a Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model (P?<?0.05). RESULTS:The 2-year PLF rate (66 patients) was 70% at the AttraX Putty and 68% at the autograft side, compared to 55% and 52% after 1 year (87 patients). GEE analysis demonstrated a significant increase for both conditions (odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.5-2.7, P?<?0.001), but no difference between the grafts (P?=?0.595). Ongoing bone formation was only observed between the facet joints. CONCLUSION:This intra-patient controlled trial demonstrated a significant increase in PLF rate between 1 and 2 years after instrumented thoracolumbar fusion, but no difference between AttraX Putty and autograft. Based on the location of the PLF mass, this increase is most likely the result of immobilization instead of grafting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:1.

Project description:BackgroundSmoking cessation represents an opportunity to reduce both short and long-term effects of smoking on complications after lumbar fusion and smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the cost-effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions prior to lumbar fusion is not fully known.MethodsWe created a decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 5 smoking-cessation strategies (behavioral counseling, nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], bupropion or varenicline monotherapy, and a combined intervention) prior to single-level, instrumented lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) from the health payer perspective. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published sources. We calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with each strategy over multiple time horizons and accounted for uncertainty with probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) consisting of 10,000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsEvery smoking-cessation intervention was more effective and less costly than usual care at the lifetime horizon. In the short term, behavioral counseling, NRT, varenicline monotherapy, and the combined intervention were also cost-saving, while bupropion monotherapy was more effective but more costly than usual care. The mean lifetime cost savings for behavioral counseling, NRT, bupropion monotherapy, varenicline monotherapy, and the combined intervention were $3,291 (standard deviation [SD], $868), $2,571 (SD, $479), $2,851 (SD, $830), $6,767 (SD, $1,604), and $34,923 (SD, $4,248), respectively. The minimum efficacy threshold (relative risk for smoking cessation) for lifetime cost savings varied from 1.01 (behavioral counseling) to 1.15 (varenicline monotherapy). A PSA revealed that the combined smoking-cessation intervention was always more effective and less costly than usual care.ConclusionsEven brief smoking-cessation interventions yield large short-term and long-term cost savings. Smoking-cessation interventions prior to PLF can both reduce costs and improve patient outcomes as health payers/systems shift toward value-based reimbursement (e.g., bundled payments) or population health models.Level of evidenceEconomic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Objective Despite a large number of publications of outcomes after spinal fusion surgery, there is still no consensus on the efficacy of the several different fusion methods. The aim of this study was to determine whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) results in an improved clinical outcome compared with uninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in the surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Methods This study included 135 patients with degenerative disk disease (n = 96) or postdiskectomy syndrome (n = 39). Inclusion criteria were at least 1 year of back pain with or without leg pain in patients aged 20 to 65 with one- or two-level disease. Exclusion criteria were sequestration of disk hernia, psychosocial instability, isthmic spondylolisthesis, drug abuse, and previous spine surgery other than diskectomy. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale (pain index). Functional disability was quantified by the disability rating index and Oswestry Disability Index. The global outcome was assessed by the patient and classified as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. The patients were randomized to conventional uninstrumented PLF (n = 67) or TLIF (n = 68). PLF was performed in a standardized fashion using autograft. TLIF was performed with pedicle titanium screw fixation and a porous tantalum interbody spacer with interbody and posterolateral autograft. The clinical outcome measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The 2-year follow-up rate was 98%. Results The two treatment groups improved significantly from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, the results in the TLIF group were significantly superior to those in the PLF group in pain index (2.0 versus 3.9, p = 0.007) and in disability rating index (22 versus 36, p = 0.003). The Oswestry Disability Index was better in the TLIF group (20 versus 28, p = 0.110, not significant). The global assessment was clearly superior in the TLIF group: 63% of patients scored "much better" in the TLIF group as compared with 48% in the PLF group (p = 0.017). Conclusions The results of the current study support the use of TLIF rather than uninstrumented PLF in the surgical treatment of the degenerative lumbar spine. The less optimal outcome after uninstrumented PLF may be explained by the much higher reoperation rate.

Project description:ImportanceConflicting evidence and large practice variation are present in the surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. More than 90% of surgical procedures in the United States include instrumented fusion compared with 50% or less in other countries.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether the effectiveness of microdecompression alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion in a real-world setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter comparative effectiveness study with a noninferiority design assessed prospective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. From September 19, 2007, to December 21, 2015, 1376 patients at 35 Norwegian orthopedic and neurosurgical departments underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis without scoliosis. After excluding patients undergoing laminectomy alone, fusion without instrumentation, or surgery in more than 2 levels and those with a former operation at the index level, 794 patients were included in the analyses, regardless of missing or incomplete follow-up data, before propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from March 20 to October 30, 2018.ExposuresMicrodecompression alone or decompression with instrumented fusion.Main outcomes and measuresA reduction from baseline of 30% or greater in the Oswestry Disability Index at 12-month follow-up.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, 570 patients (413 female [72%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [9.5] years) were included for comparison, with 285 undergoing microdecompression (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.8] years; 205 female [72%]) and 285 undergoing decompression with instrumented fusion (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [9.2] years; 208 female [73%]). The proportion of each type of procedure varied between departments. However, changes in outcome scores varied within patients but not between departments. The proportion of patients with improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index of at least 30% was 150 of 219 (68%) in the microdecompression group and 155 of 215 (72%) in the instrumentation group. The 95% CI (-12% to 5%) for the difference of -4% was above the predefined margin of noninferiority (-15%). Microdecompression alone was associated with shorter operation time (mean [SD], 89 [44] vs 180 [65] minutes; P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (mean [SD], 2.5 [2.4] vs 6.4 [3.0] days; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, the clinical effectiveness of microdecompression alone was noninferior to that of decompression with instrumented fusion. Microdecompression alone was also associated with shorter durations of surgery and hospital stay, supporting the suggestion that the less invasive procedure should be considered for most patients.

Dataset Information

Outcomes of Instrumented and Noninstrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets